The grading rubric for the project is shown below. Please let course staff know if you have any questions or concerns about the rubric. ß
| Deliverable | Points | Rubric Item | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive Summary | 1 | Presentation | Document looks professional and does not contain spelling mistakes, casual speech / grammar, or other issues |
| 1 | Length | Document is an appropriate length, covering all of the content that was requested | |
| 1 | Introduction | The introduction frames / motivates the problem and makes it clear to the reader what the need for the algorithm is, including desired runtimes if appropriate | |
| 1 | Overall Approach | This section describes the overall algorithm at a high level. This is written at an advanced undergraduate level, but does not dig into the details just yet. | |
| 1 | Implementation | Clearly and logically describes the algorithm in an understandable way. Builds components necessary for the algorithm in an intuitive order and provides examples where necessary to support the intuition. | |
| 1 | Summary of Programming Challenge | The summary of the programming challenge is clear, intuitive, and offers at least some “twist” on the main algorithm. | |
| 1 | PC Key Ideas | The document summarizes the key ideas for solving the PC in a clear and understandable way. | |
| 1 | Conclusion | Document concludes in a reasonable way by connecting everything together and concluding. | |
| Basic Implementations | 1 | Three Implementations | All three language implementations were submitted and are present |
| 1 | Test Cases | At least three simple test cases are present that show off the algorithms capabilities | |
| 1 | Test Case (2) | The test cases are non-trivial enough to show the algorithm working in a somewhat interesting way. | |
| 1 | Output | The correct output is provided for each sample test case in a different text file | |
| 3 | Execution | All three languages run and produce the correct output on all three test cases (1 pt per language) | |
| 3 | Comments | The code is commented thoroughly in a way that helps an upperclass undergraduate understand the implementation more fully (1 pt per language) | |
| Instructional Slides | 1 | Submission | Two sets of instructional slides have been submitted |
| 1 | Lec. Slides Format | Lecture slides are of appropriate length (10-15 slides) and are professionally formatted (no spelling mistakes, looks professional, etc.) | |
| 1 | Lec. Slides Content | Lecture slides adequetely cover the algorithm topic in a sensible order. These slides could be used in an undergraduate level lecture immediately | |
| 1 | Lec. Slides Mode | Lecture slides have limited text, and prioritize visuals / showing students the content over telling. Slides should contain visuals, code snippets, example executions of the algorithm, etc. | |
| 1 | Pres. Slides Format | Lecture slides are of appropriate length (5-8 slides) and are professionally formatted (no spelling mistakes, looks professional, etc.) | |
| 1 | Pres. Slides Content | Lecture slides adequetely cover the algorithm topic in a sensible order. Slides can be delivered in 10 minutes and cover topic at appropriate level of detail given the constrained time limit | |
| 1 | Pres. Slides Mode | Lecture slides have limited text, and prioritize visuals / showing students the content over telling. Slides should contain visuals, code snippets, example executions of the algorithm, etc. | |
| Presentation | 1 | Time Limit | Team delivered presentation in 10 minutes or less |
| 1 | Speakers | Each team member spoke and delivered a non-trivial piece of the presentation (e.g., you will lose this point if any team member only does the introduction slide) | |
| 4 | Content | Each speaker (one point per speaker) delivers content adequetely showing fluency of the material (minor mistakes or nervousness are ok and understandable) | |
| 1 | Depth of Presentation | Presentation describes algorithm at a depth that reasonable for 10 minutes. Some algorithms can be completely covered in 10 mins, others will be more surface level. However, the depth of the presentation should be as much as possible given time limit. | |
| Custom Programming Challenge | 1 | Document | Document is clear, professional, and unambiguously written (minor ambiguities might be understandable) |
| 1 | Twist | Programming challenge contains a “twist” that prevents the solution from being a direct application of the algorithm in question (similar to some of our PCs this semester) | |
| 1 | Sample Cases | Simple sample test cases are given in the assignment writeup that make clear how input and output will be delivered / handled | |
| 3 | Solution | Solution is provided in all three programming languages | |
| 1 | Test Cases | At least 20 test cases are provided that test a range of input sizes, edge cases, etc. | |
| 1 | Solution Execution | All solutions seem to produce correct results on all test cases | |
| 1 | Solution Comments | Comments in the solution are provided that make clear to other students (learners) how the code works. Your code should be understandable to an average upperclass undergraduate student. Esoteric code patterns are highly discouraged | |
| TOTAL POINTS | 41 |